Author: secretary

A captive bear ran amok in London – poor Bruin! His owner was a hairdresser and it seems the bear was kept to provide fur for balding customers. Or perhaps he sold bear grease as a hair preparation?

Bear Hunt in the City – On Friday afternoon the inhabitants of Hen & Chicken-court and the adjacent parts of Fleet-street, near St. Dunstan’s church and Fetter-lane, were thrown into a state of consternation by the escape of a huge Russian bear from premises at the back of the house of Mr. Bailey, hair-dresser, where he had been for some time fattening in order to supply his Majesty’s subjects with crops of hair. Bruin, after slipping his collar and demolishing the den, made his first entrée through the window of a house in the court, where and old woman was busily engaged in ironing, and who saluting him with an emphatic “Who are you?” made a rapid exit, leaving him in quiet possession of the apartment, and , hastily shutting the door, cut off his further advance in this direction. An alarm was instantly raised, and the shop-doors closed so as to prevent his egress to the street, and a gallant sally was made from the windows of a publish house in the rear, buy several persons who happened to be in the parlour at the time, headed by Mr. Bailey, the proprietor, armed with whatever missiles the place afforded. From this position the bear was driven into the vaults below, one of the assailants receiving, however, a grip in the arm, which rendered surgical aid immediately necessary. In the cellar the chance of mischief was more appalling, several workmen being engaged in repairs; and Mrs. Haydon, the wife of the proprietor of the shades below, narrowly escaped encountering him in his path by shutting herself in a pantry. He here seized a youth by the leg, which he severely lacerated, but being hotly pursued soon surrendered at discretion; and by the agility of the proprietor, who in the attempt received a bite in the arm, a rope was thrown round his neck and Bruin was conducted back to his former quarters.

The Stamford Mercury, 25th November, 1836.

The full story of the murder of Elizabeth Longfoot, of Easton came out after one of the perpetrators was apprehended and confessed under questioning, implicating his accomplices.

“The Murder at Easton. – It may be in the recollection of our readers that a murder of a most atrocious description was committed about four o’clock on the morning of 6th of March last at the village of Easton, near Stamford, upon the body of an elderly single woman, named Elizabeth Longfoot, who lived alone, and whose house was robbed at the same time of a considerable sum of money, together with some silver spoons and other property. On examining the corpse, marks of violence were seen about the neck and throat, which led to the conclusion that death must have been effected by strangulation.. Immediately after the discovery of the dreadful deed, information was conveyed to the Rev. C. Atlay and Dr. Hopkinson, Magistrates for Northamptonshire, who proceeded to The Bell public house at Easton, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the circumstances connected with the murder; and owing to the unremitting exertions of these gentlemen, who offered a reward, it is satisfactory to state that the perpetrators of the cold-hearted and inhuman deed are likely to be brought to justice, as they are at present in custody, a circumstance which was accomplished in the following manner:- The morning after the murder, John Stansor, who resided at Easton, and who was a loose character, having been repeatedly in custody for poaching and other lawless acts, absconded, and had been away for a considerable time before any suspicion was attached to him of being guilty of the murder. The Magistrates, acting on the impression that he was concerned, procured the assistance of Reed, constable of Stamford, and that of Goddard, a Bow-street officer, and these persons, after scouring the country for upwards of a hundred miles without success, at length discovered the object of their search at Willow Hall, not far from Peterborough, where they apprehended him on the 4th April. On being take before the Magistrates and questioned as to the murder, and the cause of his absconding, he at first denied all knowledge of it, but, subsequently, having undergone several examinations, he made a full confession of the circumstance, implicating himself and John Archer and Richard Woodward in both the robbery and the murder: they were apprehended on the 11th. His confession was to this effect:- He states that at three o’clock in the morning, about a fortnight before the murder, Woodward, Archer, and himself, having passed the night at a Tom and Jerry shop in the neighbourhood, proceeded, according to a previous arrangement, to the house of the deceased, and it was planned by Woodward that, as soon as they had effected an entrance into the house, he (Stansor) should throw himself into the bed of the deceased, and hold her down under the clothes, while his companions were robbing the house, and by such means they expected to be able to avoid detection, as the old lady was well acquainted with their persons. When they got to the house, however, and were in the act of removing the boards from the wash-house window, the noise awoke the deceased, and caused her to throw up the bed room window, and to cry out, “You villains, I’ll swear my life against you in the morning.” Being thus foiled, they went away, and supposing that it would not be an easy matter to surprise the deceased, they came to the resolution of murdering her, in order to prevent her having the power to identify their persons. Stansor next went on to state, that on the morning of the 6th of March, about four o’clock, his companions and himself went to the house and were proceeding to remove the boards from the wash-room window, when the deceased was aroused, and coming down stairs, opened the side door of the house, and ran into the street, crying “Murder! thieves!” which alarmed two young men named Thompson, living immediately opposite, and according to their statement to the Magistrates in the morning after the murder had occurred, it appeared that, after listening to the cries for a few minutes, they distinctly heard a gurgling noise proceed from the direction of the house, which caused them to suppose the deceased was unwell; they accordingly got up, supposing that something unusual was the matter, and had proceeded as far as the gate of the premises of the deceased, when they heard the house door lock inside. They then went to the front of the house, and upon looking up, observed a light move from one room to another, and supposing that it was the old lady who had been aroused by some false alarm, they returned to their own house, where they remained watching the opposite house for three quarters of an hour, but saw nothing further that night. The confession of Stansor confirms this account for, according to his statement, as the deceased was returning to her house after giving the alarm, and just as she was coming to the window of the wash-house, Archer sprang upon her from a corner in which he had concealed himself, knocked her down, and pressing his knees against her throat, dispatched her by strangling her, whilst Woodward took a plough line from his pocket, and having fastened it round the neck of the deceased, they hauled her into the house, and then shut and locked the door, at the moment the Thompsons came to the gate to listen. After this confession, the accomplices were taken into custody, and Woodward confirmed the whole statement before the Magistrates, and subsequently to the officers when removed to the prison. The result of the statements made by the two prisoners has led to the apprehension of ten other men, inhabitants of Eas(t)on, who had committed burglaries and sheepstealing, all of whom have been committed to Northampton gaol on the several charges preferred against the. The circumstance had caused the greatest sensation in the neighbourhood, as one of the prisoners had borne an irreproachable character.

The Stamford Mercury, 11th May, 1838.

It seems Easton was gaining a reputation for being a hotbed of criminality due to the large scale and amount of crime committed there in recent weeks! But was there, perhaps, a reason for this?

“In addition to the names of 12 males, whom we have shown to be committed to gaol for various felonies at Easton, near Stamford, we lament to record those of 8 females, viz. Mary Ploughwright, Mary Hull, Ann Ford, Mary Ploughwright, jun., Eleanor Ploughwright, Sarah Ploughwright, Frances Walden, and Sarah Scotchbrook, all of that parish, who were yesterday se’nnight committed to the house of correction at Oundle to hard labour to various and repeated delinquencies; thus completing a catalogue of no less than twenty persons, all within a few weeks extracted from the village, and at the present moment incarcerated, for offences from the lowest to the highest in the scale of crime, even murder! – A grave enquiry arises as to the cause of such extreme delinquency, in a village of not very large population; and the chief cause seems to be, that formerly the digging of stones for the purpose of making slates for roofing was very extensively carried on at Easton, but latterly it has been the pleasure of the Marquis of Exeter, the owner of the soil to restrict the continuance of the trade and many person have been in consequence thrown out of employment, their connections, and their settlements, being at Easton, they do not like to quit the parish, and their poverty and their idleness have produced great demoralisation.”

The Stamford Mercury, 4th May, 1838.

As a consequence of the investigation of the Easton murder, many labourers were found to have committed lesser crimes.

“Easton Murder. – The enquiry before the Magistrates (still going on) has led to the committal for trial at Northampton of Richard Woodward and John Archer (noticed in our last to be in custody) as perpetrators of this horrid and almost unparalleled act of atrocity. It has also led to other most important results: on Wednesday last, from circumstances which transpired during the investigation, the following persons, all of Easton, were committed for trial, viz. Jacob Earl, labourer, on the charge of stealing sheep, the property of Thomas Thompson, Esq., of Tinwell; Chas Newey, tailor, charged with stealing fowls from the premises of the Rev. Gregory Bateman; Henry Ford and James Ploughwright, labourers, on the charge of stealing fowls from the premises of Mr. Charles Whitehead; and William Woodward, labourer for stealing fowls from Mr. John Trasler, butcher. – There are still parties in custody whose cases are not disposed of, and most of those committed will have to answer for a plurality of crimes: and dark as may be this miserable picture, we are sorry to observe that the Augean stable of Easton (in Northamptonshire, about two miles south-west of Stamford), yet containing little more than 100 houses, does not appear to be yet nearly cleansed.”

The Stamford Mercury, 20th April, 1838.

The dreadful murder at Easton, reported in last week’s post, continued to fascinate. However, it appears they had apprehended the wrong men and had to discharge them.

“In the case of the late atrocious murder of Elizabeth Longfoot, of Easton, the coroner’s jury on Wednesday last returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person on persons unknown; and yesterday the inquiry of the Magistrates on the same painful subject, which has continued almost daily at Easton since Tuesday se’nnight (the day of the murder), terminated by the release on his own recognizance of Andrew Porter, on whom suspicion had fallen: other parties apprehended had previously been discharged: thus it would seem that the perpetrator of this dreadful crime must remain undiscovered till the writhing of a guilty conscience, or some act of that Great Being ‘from whom no secrets are hid,’ shall develope (sic) the horrid transaction.”

The Stamford Mercury, 16th March, 1838.

But the police did not give up and three weeks later, another man was arrested:

“John Stansor, on whom suspicion rests as a party concerned in the later murder of Eliaabeth Longfoot at Easton, and for whose apprehension the most unremitting exertion have been made in various directions since the perpetration of the horrid deed, was on Wednesday last taken, whilst emplyed in spreading manure at Willow-hall Farm, near Peterboro’, (where he was engaged under the name of Islip,) by Mr. Wm. Reed, the chief constable of Stamford, and is now in safe custody.”

The Stamford Mercury, 6th April, 1938.

But then again, perhaps some of the released men were guilty after all . . . ? We think the gang of thieves mentioned in the last sentence were unconnected with the murder.

“Easton Murder. – Since the apprehension of John Stansor, noticed in our last paper, the searching inquiry of the Magistrates has been pursued with additional zeal: breathless anxiety now prevails on the subject, both in the village of Easton and in the neighbourhood. On Wednesday last Stansor underwent an examination before the Rev. Charles Atlay and W. L. Hopkinson, Esq. M. D., ad was remanded. A meeting of the Magistrates was afterwards held at the Bull and Swan inn, St. Martin’s, and was attended by the Marquis of Exeter. Richard Woodward, slater, and John Archer, labourer, inhabitants of Easton, are in custody: the latter was one of the persons originally apprehended as implicated in the crime: the fact elicited are, however, properly kept secret, and we studiously avoid promulgating various circumstances which rumour has brought to our knowledge, lest any observation at present in a public paper might tend to defeat the ends of justice. Yesterday a whole gang of thieves were apprehended at Easton: many are lodged in Stamford gaol.”

The Stamford Mercury, 13th April, 1838.

It appears the early Victorians loved to hear about blood and gore. This report of a horrendous murder in Easton-on-the Hill revels in the details of the victim’s wounds.

“Murder at Easton, near Stamford. – On Tuesday morning last, about four o’clock, a shocking murder was perpetrated on the person of Elizabeth Longfoot, a maiden lady, residing in her own house, near the church in the above village. The unfortunate victim’s mother died about twelve months ago, since which time she has lived alone, notwithstanding she laboured under an aberration of mind, in which state she would frequently wander about the village at untimely hours. It was on her return from one of these wanderings that the unfortunate creature met her fate. The wretches who imbrued their hands in her blood appear to have entered the house in her absence, at the kitchen window, the centre part of which they had broken and opened, but finding a strong iron bar down the middle, which prevented their ingress, they took out the whole side of the window, and so effected an entrance. They then procured a bunch of keys belonging to the poor woman and left in the house, and proceeded to ransack all the drawers in search of treasure. From the penurious habits and a small independent property possessed by the deceased, it was said she had money secreted in the house. Whilst the search was going on, it would appear she returned home, and was knocked down with a bludgeon just as she passed the outer gate: her body was then dragged within the door of her house, where on Tuesday morning she was found weltering in her gore, quite dead. The blood had flowed profusely where she fell, and on each side of the body appeared the imprint of a man’s knee in corduroy breeches, who had hastened her death by gripping her throat. The wound on the left temple was not above half an inch in length, but the blood had flowed so freely as to leave a pool under her head and completely saturate and fill her bonnet and cap. In consequence of three persons being already apprehended on suspicion of having committed the murder, and warrant being issued for the apprehension of others, it was deemed essential to the ends of justice not to report the evidence taken on the inquest, which was held at the Bell Inn at Easton on Wednesday, before Thos. Marshall, Gent. of Kettering, a coroner for Northamptonshire, but we were able to gather the following particulars:- Henry Mitchell and Samuel Mitchell, two young men residing nearly opposite Mrs. Longfoot’s house, heard about four o’clock in the morning the cry of ‘murder’ three times repeated by the deceased, and the latter distinctly heard what he is now convinced was the fatal blow; but they took no notice of it, as they had been long accustomed to hear her make similar noises during the night. Two brothers named Thompson, residing a little higher up the hill in the village, state that they heard her come home about four o’clock, and when she arrived at her gate she exclaimed ‘You villains, I’ll swear my life against you in the morning;’ and instantly she cried out ‘Murder, murder, murder.’ On this they got up and came into the street, where they stood for some time listening, and saw a light carried about the rooms: they advanced to the house, and just as they got to the gate, the door was shut to and locked, as they supposed by the deceased, on which they went away. – On the day of the murder, the Rev. C. Atlay and Dr. Hopkinson, magistrates for Northamptonshire, investigated all the circumstances then brought to light, and also examined several witnesses, which led to the apprehension of three brothers named Archer, residents in Easton, William a shoemaker, and John and James labourers, who were lodged in Stamford gaol on Tuesday night for further examination. On a post-mortem examination of the body by M. W. Jackson, Esq. on Wednesday, the marks of the fingers of the murderer on the neck of the deceased were distinctly observed, and it is believed that her death ensued from strangulation: her age was 54: the brain was in a healthy and perfect state, except as to one part, which is supposed to have occasioned her insanity. The inquest was adjourned by coroner till Tuesday the 13th Inst. Yesterday morning, a young man of Easton, named Andrew Porter, a baker was apprehended, and after examination before the magistrates, was committed to Oundle gaol for further examination t0-morrow at ten o’clock.”

The Stamford Mercury, 9th March, 1838.

We know smoking is horrible, but this diatribe looks at the possible effect on the lungs, as well as almost everything else!

“The propensity to smoking is declared by the physicians to be actually one of the most efficient causes of the German tendency to diseases of the lungs. In point of expense, its waste is enormous. In Hamburgh alone 50,000 boxes of cigars have been consumed in a year, each box costing about 3l. sterling: 150,000l. puffed into the air! And it is to be remembered, that even this is but a part of the expense; the cigar adorning the lip only of the better order, and even among those, only of the young; the mature generally abjuring this small vanity, and blowing away with the mighty Egyptian plague of frogs, is felt every where and in every thing. It poisons the streets, the clubs, and the coffee houses; furniture, clothes, equipage, person are redolent of the abomination. It makes even the dullness of the newspaper doubly narcotic; that napkin on the table, tells instantly that native hands have been over it; every eatable and drinkable, all that can be seen, felt, heard, or understood, is saturated with tobacco; the very air we breathe is but a conveyance for this poison into the lungs; and every man, woman and child, rapidly acquires the complexion of a boiled chicken. From the hour of their waking, if nine-tenths of the population can ever be said to be awake at all, to the hour of their lying down, which in innumerable instances the peasantry do in their clothes, the pipe is never out of their mouths; one mighty fumigation reigns, and human nature is smoke-dried buy tens of thousands of square miles. ~But if it be a crime to shorten life, or extinguish faculties, the authority of the chief German physiologists charges this custom with effecting both in a very remarkable degree. They compute that of twenty deaths of men between eighteen and thirty-five, ten originate in the waste of the constitution by smoking. The universal weakness of the eyes, which makes the Germans par excellence a spectacled nation, is probably attributed to the same cause of the general nervous debility. Tobacco burns out their blood, their teeth, their eyes, and their brains; turns their flesh into mummy, and their mind into metaphysics. – From a Journal of the Defence of Hamburgh in 1813.”

The Stamford Mercury, 30th November, 1832.

A very sad story about a father’s despair after his daughter received unwelcome attentions from the butler at Burghley House. There was some doubt about the fate of the butler, however.

“Attempt to violate a young female at Burghley – Suicide of the Father of the Girl. – On Saturday an inquest was held at the King’s Arms, Little St. James’s-street, London, before Mr. Higgs, touching the death of William Bowles, aged 63, coachman in the service of W. S. Poyntz, Esq., M.P., of the Albany. – Mr. Thos. Smith, of No. 16, North-mews, Mapleton-place, Burton-crescent, stated that the deceased, who was his brother-in-law, drove to his door in a hackney coach about eight o’clock on the preceding morning; he was accompanied by his daughter, a very interesting girl, who lived as upper nursemaid in the Marquis of Exeter’s mansion, Burghley, near Stamford. On getting out of the coach, the poor man stared wildly, and appeared as if labouring under the most heart-breaking anguish. On enquiring into the cause of his uneasiness, the deceased, with tears in his eyes, told him that the butler in the service of the Marquis had been taking the most improper liberties with his daughter, having tried every means which a villain could suggest to seduce her. He then added, with great emphasis, that if he knew where to find the villain who had attempted his daughter’s honour, he would blow out his brains with a pistol . Witness reasoned with him and he became a little more composed, and shortly afterwards he left witness’s house, leaving behind his daughter, whom he placed under his care, with strict injunctions to look well after her, as she was the darling of his heart and comfort of his age. On the following day he was greatly shocked on hearing that his unfortunate relative had hanged himself in a loft over his master’s stables, in Little St. James’s-street, and when found he was quite dead and cold. – In answer to questions from the coroner and jury, the witness said that the Marquis of Exeter had investigated the conduct of the butler, and feeling satisfied that he had behaved in the most brutal and improper manner towards the young woman in question, had dismissed him from his service. – Several witnesses stated that the deceased bore the most exemplary character, having been in Mr. Poyntz’s service for the last 36 years. Upon hearing of the ill-treatment which his daughter had experienced, he immediately repaired to Burghley-House and brought her away. Since that time he had been distracted, and had threatened vengeance against the butler. – The jury said they thought the Marquis of Exeter had acted properly in dismissing such a man from his service, although the punishment was far too light for such delinquency. – A verdict of temporary insanity was then recorded. – London Papers. – [We understand that the butler has not been dismissed: he returned to Burghley House on Friday, and still continues there.]”

The Stamford Mercury, 11th May, 1832.

A Miss Blackwell and her maid stoutly defended their home against a party of robbers, seeing them off with a salvo of shots.

“A few nights since a [pa]rty of ruffians, about seven or eight in number, attacked the house of Lieut. Blackwell, of Cookstown, near Ardee with the view of robbing it. Lieut. B. was on the continent a[t] the time (but has since returned), and the only persons in the house were his sister and a servant maid. It was near one o’clock, when Miss Blackwell was awakened by hearing persons attempting to force the door and windows: on her demanding what they wanted, they replied that they has a message from her brother. She desired them to deliver the message, as she would not open the door at that unseasonable hour. They threatened, if they were not admitted, they would break in the house and afterwards set it on fire, and accordingly they commenced a violent attack on both front and rear; but the house, which was very strong, having been recently built, resisted all their efforts. In the mean time, Miss B., fearing they might be successful, charged with some arms which were in the house: she then commenced firing out right and left, which so daunted the assailants that they decamped, after breaking a number of windows. They fired one shot into the house, the heroic protectress of which fired no less than six in return. It is conjectured that robbery, either of money or arms, was the object of the gang. – Droghera Journal.”

The Stamford Mercury , 22nd December, 1837.

Three or four years ago, we published a series of posts about Wife selling. The more we read these old newspapers, the more instances we find. Here’s another one!

“BUYING AND SELLING WIVES. – The London papers state that a disgusting and disgraceful scene happened in Smithfield market on Monday. A fellow led his wife by a halter, and gave her to a drover, desiring him to tie her up to the pens, and sell her to the best bidder. The woman, who did not appear to be above 25 years of age, and not bad-looking, suffered herself to be tied up very quietly. A crowd of persons soon gathered round, and a rather respectable man entered into a negociation with the drover for the purchase of the wife: after some higgling, she was knocked down for the sum of 10s. The money was paid, but the driver refused to release her except on the payment of 2s. as his commission for the sale which he had effected. Some confusion took place about the demand, but it was eventually paid, and she was released from the pens opposite the Half-Moon public-house, and delivered to her purchaser, who appeared highly pleased with his bargain. The parties adjourned to a neighbouring public-house, where the late husband spent the greater part of the money in brandy and water. – As a caution to persons who figure in scenes of this description, and for the instruction of Magistrates, who, from the frequency of such occurrences, must either be ignorant of negligent of their duty, we quote the following passage from a very useful popular digest of the laws, which is well known by the title of The Cabinet Lawyer:- ‘The Court of King’s Bench is the guardian of public morals, and has the judicial animadversion of offences against public decency and good behaviour. In that court an information was granted against a number of persons concerned iin assigning a young girl to a gentleman under pretence of learning music, but for the purpose of prostitution – 3 Bur., 1438. There is no doubt that the vulgar and brutal exhibition, too often tolerated, of a man selling his wife, and delivering her in a halter is a misdemeanours, both in the buyer and seller, punishable with fine and imprisonment, or by an endictment preferred at the assizes or quarter sessions.'”

The Stamford Mercury, 2nd March, 1832.